If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
vogtgamble is back....duh...
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" a écrit dans le message de ... Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate wrote: 20April wrote: As far as I am concerned, if you can not fit into a plane seat, then you should pay double for an extra seat. If you are just a fat slob, even if a kid, then why should normal people have to suffer, either from your surplus blubber occupying THEIR space, or from your offensive STINK? If you refuse to look after yourself, then you should pay. Here in America, we have large guys known as NFL football players, who sometimes fly with commercial carriers. Since they're hardly out of shape, be sure to vociferously expound on your gripe, should you find yourself seated next to one of them. Particularly since the effort to fit more and more seats into a row has resulted in airline seats so narrow even anorexic passengers have trouble fitting into them! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other, then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three and three. What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration? How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their model-numbers. If you refuse to deal in facts, that's your problem. Not understanding the significant differences in major airplane models and their interior layouts is one manifestation of that refusal. The old days of two seats per side went away with the early jets. The advent of jet planes gave passengers two seats per side (four across) in first class, three seats per side (six across) in coach. This was the case for many of the early single-aisle jets: Boeing's 707 and 727, Douglas's DC-8, the Convair 880/990, and Boeing's 737. Douglas's DC-9s were four across in first class, five across (two and three) in coach, and that continued into the MD-80, MD-90, and Boeing 717 models; the Boeing 717 was simply a re-branded MD-90 series airplane made after Boeing merged with McDonell-Douglas back in the late 1990s. Other jets such as the DeHavilland Comet, SUD Aviation Caravelle, Hawker-Siddeley Trident, and BAC-111 followed similar conventions, as did Russian-built single-aisle jets from Tupolev and Ilyushin. Boeing's 747 marked the advent of twin-aisle transport, and in coach class, it was typical to have ten across seating, grouped 3-4-3. That is still a common configuration. The 767 is usually configured 2-3-2 in six across. The 777 may be either 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 depending on the airline. Douglas's DC-10 was usually 2-5-2, while the MD-11 was 2-5-3. Lockheed's L-1011 was also 2-5-2. Airbus tended to follow Boeing's lead; A320s are 3-3 six across like Boeing 737s, while the twin-aisle A300/310/330/340 are configured similarly to Boeing's twin-aisle planes, depending on size. Russian Ilyusin IL-96 twin aisle planes often have a 3-2-3 setup, eight across. Even the new gigantic A380 runs 3-4-3 on the main deck, 2-4-2 in the upper deck, for coach/economy class. And again, in the twin-aisles, first and business classes have fewer seats across. The first class sections on the Emirates A380 jet planes have to be seen to be believed; the price of a long-distance flight in one of those precious seats is also hard to believe, but there are enough high-rollers around to fill them, according to Emirates' management. (I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much, and the rest is still true.) I can't think of any twin-aisle airplane that has more than five seats together, usually in the middle section. As such, your claims of a "half-dozen in the middle, plus three and three" are a bit far-fetched. Economy class seating has tended to shrink the amount of legroom by decreasing seat pitch (the amount by which seat rows are separated), but seat width, no so much. Some minor changes to width have resulted from redesigned seats with more passenger entertainment features, but that usually isn't significant, and the seats at the very front of the section have always had a little less hip room to accomodate the tables that stow under the armrest, since there is no seat in front for a folding table. Instead of blaming airlines for "narrower" seats, it seems increasingly likely that aging passengers, particularly in the "developed" world, should consider their increasing girth as well. I've certainly put on pounds over the years, and yet, I still fit reasonably comfortably in just about any airline seat, and don't really perceive them as any narrower, considering my own change in girth of the years. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
I'm quite certain I flew on a 707 that was 3-2 with a nice aisle. And I
also remember flying a plane that had 11 total seats across when I thought there should have been 10. In article , yeadeagisss wrote: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other, then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three and three. What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration? How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their model-numbers. If you refuse to deal in facts, that's your problem. Not understanding the significant differences in major airplane models and their interior layouts is one manifestation of that refusal. The old days of two seats per side went away with the early jets. The advent of jet planes gave passengers two seats per side (four across) in first class, three seats per side (six across) in coach. This was the case for many of the early single-aisle jets: Boeing's 707 and 727, Douglas's DC-8, the Convair 880/990, and Boeing's 737. Douglas's DC-9s were four across in first class, five across (two and three) in coach, and that continued into the MD-80, MD-90, and Boeing 717 models; the Boeing 717 was simply a re-branded MD-90 series airplane made after Boeing merged with McDonell-Douglas back in the late 1990s. Other jets such as the DeHavilland Comet, SUD Aviation Caravelle, Hawker-Siddeley Trident, and BAC-111 followed similar conventions, as did Russian-built single-aisle jets from Tupolev and Ilyushin. Boeing's 747 marked the advent of twin-aisle transport, and in coach class, it was typical to have ten across seating, grouped 3-4-3. That is still a common configuration. The 767 is usually configured 2-3-2 in six across. The 777 may be either 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 depending on the airline. Douglas's DC-10 was usually 2-5-2, while the MD-11 was 2-5-3. Lockheed's L-1011 was also 2-5-2. Airbus tended to follow Boeing's lead; A320s are 3-3 six across like Boeing 737s, while the twin-aisle A300/310/330/340 are configured similarly to Boeing's twin-aisle planes, depending on size. Russian Ilyusin IL-96 twin aisle planes often have a 3-2-3 setup, eight across. Even the new gigantic A380 runs 3-4-3 on the main deck, 2-4-2 in the upper deck, for coach/economy class. And again, in the twin-aisles, first and business classes have fewer seats across. The first class sections on the Emirates A380 jet planes have to be seen to be believed; the price of a long-distance flight in one of those precious seats is also hard to believe, but there are enough high-rollers around to fill them, according to Emirates' management. (I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much, and the rest is still true.) I can't think of any twin-aisle airplane that has more than five seats together, usually in the middle section. As such, your claims of a "half-dozen in the middle, plus three and three" are a bit far-fetched. Economy class seating has tended to shrink the amount of legroom by decreasing seat pitch (the amount by which seat rows are separated), but seat width, no so much. Some minor changes to width have resulted from redesigned seats with more passenger entertainment features, but that usually isn't significant, and the seats at the very front of the section have always had a little less hip room to accomodate the tables that stow under the armrest, since there is no seat in front for a folding table. Instead of blaming airlines for "narrower" seats, it seems increasingly likely that aging passengers, particularly in the "developed" world, should consider their increasing girth as well. I've certainly put on pounds over the years, and yet, I still fit reasonably comfortably in just about any airline seat, and don't really perceive them as any narrower, considering my own change in girth of the years. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
yeadeagisss wrote:
Instead of blaming airlines for "narrower" seats, it seems increasingly likely that aging passengers, particularly in the "developed" world, should consider their increasing girth as well. I've certainly put on pounds over the years, and yet, I still fit reasonably comfortably in just about any airline seat, and don't really perceive them as any narrower, considering my own change in girth of the years. There is no doubt that North Americans tend to be larger than people from some other cultures, and that some of us have gained a few pounds. The fact remains that some airlines cram more seats into their planes to fit more passengers into each flight. I made a couple of transatlantic flights where I felt like a sardine crammed into my seat. The first time it was a charter flight. The second time I paid extra to go KLM and it was just as bad. The next time I flew Air Canada and I had no problem at all. Last month I did another transatlantic trip and some short hops over there (KLM and Scandinavian Airlines) . I found the seating quite comfortable. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
"John Kulp" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:32:06 GMT, Larry in AZ wrote: Waiving the right to remain silent, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" said: That, too, but they have CERTAINLY narrowed them considerably since I first traveled by air! There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other, then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three and three. (And it used to be possible to walk past the flight attendants' service cart to access a lavatory, without them having to move the cart to an alcove to allow passage.) True, planes have gotten bigger and wider, but not enough larger to allow for the number of passengers they try to squeeze into "coach". (Even First Class is not nearly so spacious as it once was.) Agreed. I can remember when you could exit from a coach window seat without everyone else needing to get completely out of their seats for you to get by. And the seats and arm rests were wider as well. Remember what fares you paid in today's dollars too? Yup, was $13.50 OAK to LAX. Every hour on the 1/2 hour. Get on the plane and buy your ticket then. Every hour on the hour LAX to OAK. $21 first class. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate wrote: 20April wrote: As far as I am concerned, if you can not fit into a plane seat, then you should pay double for an extra seat. If you are just a fat slob, even if a kid, then why should normal people have to suffer, either from your surplus blubber occupying THEIR space, or from your offensive STINK? If you refuse to look after yourself, then you should pay. Here in America, we have large guys known as NFL football players, who sometimes fly with commercial carriers. Since they're hardly out of shape, be sure to vociferously expound on your gripe, should you find yourself seated next to one of them. Particularly since the effort to fit more and more seats into a row has resulted in airline seats so narrow even anorexic passengers have trouble fitting into them! Really, when did this happen? I haven't noticed any recent changes in the number of seat in a row on the same aircraft type. I haven't seen any MD80s with 6 seats in a row, for example. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other, then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three and three. What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration? How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their model-numbers. (I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much, and the rest is still true.) I would bet you have NEVER flown a plane with a 3-6-3 configuration. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: There used to be two seats on either side of a fairly wide aisle, then it became three on one side, two on the other, then three and three.... now it's half a dozen in the middle, PLUS three and three. What aircraft have you actually flown on with that configuration? How should I know? I choose them by their destination, not their model-numbers. (I may exaggerate the "half a dozen", but not by much, and the rest is still true.) Let's go with the 2-3 and the 3-3. The MD80 has 2-3 and the 737 has 3-3. Are you really more comfortable in an MD80? Hell, most of the planes I fly on are 1-2, and that isn't spacious. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra | 20April | Air travel | 52 | August 18th, 2008 08:54 PM |
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra | 20April | Europe | 12 | June 21st, 2008 11:34 PM |
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra | 20April | Travel Marketplace | 12 | June 21st, 2008 11:34 PM |
Fat Slobs Should Pay Extra | 20April | USA & Canada | 12 | June 21st, 2008 11:34 PM |